[Lf_carrier] CGL 5.0 - Git
greg at kroah.com
Sun May 18 11:35:02 PDT 2008
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 04:30:32PM +0200, Guillaume FORTAINE wrote:
> > What specific kernel patches are required for CGL 5.0 that is not
> > currently in the kernel.org tree that would require a different branch?
> The Carrier Gaps :
> Satisfied Requirements
> The workgroup will begin by taking the published CGL 4.0 documents and
> splitting them into two parts. The "Satisfied Requirements" document
> will include all requirements that are fully satisfied by the current
> mainline kernel and/or latest enterprise distributions. The goal is to
> have a formal way for the carrier community to communicate to their
> vendors and the Linux community what requirements they expect to
> continue to be satisfied over time. This document is not expected to
> change frequently, except by having new requirements added to it as
> they are satisfied.
> Carrier Gaps
> The second, and more dynamic document, is the "Carrier Gaps" document.
> This document describes carrier requirements that are not currently
> satisfied by the mainline kernel and/or latest enterprise distros.
> Each requirement will include one or more specific examples of carrier
> needs that are not currently being satisfied. These requirements
> should include some proof-of-concept to avoid blue-sky requirements.
> Examples of proofs-of-concept are proposed patchsets, the existence in
> other OSes like Windows or Solaris, or existing products that use
> different approaches such as a hard RTOS.
I understand that the CGL group feels there are gaps, and has tried to
document them, that's fine. My point being where are those kernel
patches that implement those gaps, and why are they not being submitted
to the main kernel.org tree for inclusion for everyone to use?
Setting up a separate tree does no one any good, unless you want to
never get the code merged...
> how-to-get-kernel.org-accounts is described at
> However a separate git server works just fine.
There are lots of public git hosting services availble, that's not the
issue here. The issue is where is the code you are saying is somehow
not included into the main kernel tree, and why is it not being
More information about the Lf_carrier